There have been numerous cases over the past several years of environmental extremists burning down labs that conduct animal research to which they object, or setting fires at car dealerships that sell vehicles the activists consider harmful to the environment. In a 2003 case, a new, $23 million apartment complex in California was burned to the ground to protest “urban sprawl.” The fire spread to an occupied building nearby, and hundreds of residents had to flee for their lives.
Another alarming instance of environmental terrorism took place recently at the Discovery Channel’s headquarters in Silver Spring, Md.
A man took three people hostage and held them for hours. He was carrying homemade pipe bombs, one of which exploded when he was shot dead after making threatening gestures toward one of the hostages. He apparently had more explosives at his home.
The man, James Jae Lee, had previously been ordered to stay away from the TV station, which he accused of promoting “overpopulation” and of not supporting environmental causes. Lee had said he was inspired by former Vice President Al Gore’s environmentalist film “An Inconvenient Truth.”
We certainly do not suggest that all environmental activists behave as Lee did. Most – including many whose views we may disagree with – promote their cause in the ballot box and through the exercise of free speech. But an active minority disgustingly believe that terrorism, violence and property damage are acceptable means to reach their environmental goals.
We firmly support the right to dissent on matters of public policy. But that should be done peacefully and within the law.